Beef Quality Audit. National Market Cow and Bull. Executive Summary of the Beef Cattle Edition

Transcription

1 Executive Summary of the 2007 National Market Cow and Bull Beef Quality Audit Recognize and optimize cattle value Monitor health Market cattle in a timely and appropriate manner Prevent quality defects Be proactive to ensure beef safety and integrity Beef Cattle Edition

2 Executive Summary of the 2007 National Market Cow and Bull Beef Quality Audit Conducted by Texas A&M University North Dakota State University California Polytechnic State University Pennsylvania State University University of Georgia University of Florida West Texas A&M University Coordinated by National Cattlemen s Beef Association s Beef Quality Assurance Program December 2007 National Market Cow and Bull Beef Quality Audit

3 Do the right thing. Ultimately, this is a roadmap to optimize beef quality. This document summarizes an industry-wide research effort that is unique to all of U.S. agriculture. In these pages, we talk openly about the challenges and opportunities our industry faces. We discuss our weaknesses. And, we explore where we ve been and where we ve made progress. We share ideas on how we can work together in our own way, on our own farms and ranches to improve beef quality and the stewardship of cattle. Since the first beef quality audits were conducted in the early 1990s, cattle producers like you have moved aggressively to make beef better. You recognize quality matters. You understand the necessity of food safety to underpinning beef demand. You realize beef production doesn t end when a cow or a bull leaves your farm or ranch, that it s really a first, critical step in a complicated journey to the dinner plates of America. You also recognize how consumers have changed in recent years. They worry more than ever before about antibiotics and disease. They want to know their steaks or hamburgers are produced safely and humanely. They scrutinize abuse or mishandling of livestock like never before. At the same time, they trust us, and they demonstrate this trust by keeping beef at the center of the plate. They continue to prefer beef s flavor to all other products in the marketplace today, and they ll continue to support our livelihood as long as they know we re doing a good job. But it s something we can never take for granted. About 250 million Americans will eat beef the beef you helped produce this week. And, beef produced from cows and bulls has become an increasingly important food item in America s kitchens and restaurants. It s no longer just fast food hamburgers. It s roasts, steaks, fajitas and an endless array of innovative, flavorful and value-added food items that are available at just about every restaurant, grocery store and eatery in America. Beef producers must stop thinking of market cows and bulls as culls and start managing, monitoring, and marketing them as the important food source they are, says Dr. Bill Henning of Pennsylvania State University. Improved production of cull cows and bulls will help keep up with the American consumer s love affair with beef without relying on imported lean meat for use in the US. And ultimately, that s what the 2007 National Market Cow and Bull Beef Quality Audit is all about. It provides a review of where we ve been, a snapshot of where we are today, and a roadmap for where we can be tomorrow. Beef Cattle Edition

4 Point of Reduce the use of electric prods and other aggressive driving aids when moving cattle. Background In 1994, the industry conducted its first audit to develop strategies and tactics for improving quality and minimizing economic losses. The audit determined the industry fell short in ensuring the quality of its product in a number of important areas. These included: Producers did not harvest cows and bulls in a timely fashion, waiting instead until the physical condition of the cattle had deteriorated, resulting in numerous problems down the production line. Beef and dairy cows had inadequate muscling at harvest. Too many market cows were disabled prior to harvest. Too many market cattle and carcasses were condemned. Too many carcasses had excessive bruises. The audit concluded that most of these losses could have been reclaimed if producers managed, monitored, and marketed their herds more closely to promote value in their cows and bulls and improve the quality of beef. In 1999, a second audit determined that the industry had made significant strides in reducing condemnations, the frequency of disabled cattle, bruising, damage caused by branding, injection-site lesions and the overall condition of cattle, but concluded much more work needed to be done to make beef better and beef producers more competitive. The 2007 Audit Researchers carried out the 2007 National Market Cow and Bull Beef Quality Audit between December 2006 and September Their goal was to compare results to the 1994 and 1999 audits, determine how far the industry has come in addressing previously identified quality problems, what areas are still below grade, and what challenges might lay ahead. The audit was comprised of four phases: During Phase I, researchers conducted audits in packing plants to identify quality defects in cows and bulls in receiving areas and holding pens, and in their carcasses on harvest floors and in chill coolers. They also audited packing plants for fabrication and traceability. The packing plant phase of the audit was the result of the work of over 70 auditors, including faculty, staff, and graduate students, as well as state beef council personnel and other members of the industry working in collaboration with seven universities. The audit took place in 23 packing plants in 11 states. Collectively, these plants harvest more than 15,000 head per day. The audit surveyed approximately 5,500 live animals, 5,000 carcasses during harvest, and 3,000 carcasses in the coolers. In Phase II, interviews consisting of free response and aided questionnaires were conducted with two interviewees at each plant one packer and one Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) employee. The purpose of the interviews was to determine improvements and declines in the quality of cattle since the 1999 audit. In Phase III, the audits consisted of interviews with eight end users, looking specifically at subprimal defects, top sirloin center cuts, caps, and bottom round flats. They also looked for injection-site lesions and other defects that would cause devaluation. In Phase IV, researchers, producers, retailers, restaurateurs, packers, processors and government representations met for a two-day workshop to discuss strategies and tactics to ensure continued quality and animal-handling improvements. National Market Cow and Bull Beef Quality Audit

5 Phase I Packing Plant Audits During this phase, auditors monitored six areas at 23 packing plants: receiving, holding pens, harvest floors, coolers, and fabrication rooms. The auditors also looked at the traceability of the cattle being processed by these plants. Receiving Audits Key points: Auditors saw the virtual elimination of cattle that were injured and could not walk when compared to previous audits. All truck and trailer loads met American Meat Institute (AMI) guidelines for spacing. Unnecessary use of electric prods continues to be a cattle-handling problem that needs improvement. Cattle slipping while being unloaded can be a problem and needs to be addressed. Cattle need to be separated by gender to avoid injuries. Auditors evaluated approximately 5,500 live animals and 10 percent of trucks during this phase. They determined that all truck and trailer loads met the AMI guidelines for livestock spacing. Overall, cattle loads averaged 30 square feet per animal and 34 animals per load. Beef cattle loads averaged 24 square feet per animal and 38 head per load. Travel Among overall load numbers, less than 1% of the cattle traveled more than 28 hours. All cattle surveyed were trucked an average of 9 hours and 409 miles. Beef cattle were trucked an average of 9 hours and 473 miles. The minimum distance traveled by cattle overall was 22 miles. The minimum distance traveled for beef cattle was 60 miles. The maximum distance traveled for beef cattle was 1050 miles. Trailers -- 64% of beef loads arrived on tractor trailers, while 36% came in on gooseneck/bumper trailers, with the same figures applying to all cattle loads. 14% of beef loads traveling in tractortrailers contained cattle in the doghouse (the rear compartment of potbelly trailers), compared to 16% of overall loads. Load sorting -- 65% of all loads and 56% of beef loads were single gender. 35% of all loads and 44% of beef loads were multi-gender, of which 73% were not sorted by gender. Cattle unloading -- 65% of all cattle loads had no cattle slip, 70% had no more than 3% cattle slip, and 30% had more than 3% cattle slip. 64% of beef loads had no cattle slip, 73% had no more than 3% cattle slip, and 27% had more than 3% of cattle slip. Dead/moribund cattle A total of 0.24% loads had moribund cattle and 0.04% had dead cattle. Beef cattle loads contained 0 dead of moribund cattle. Electric prod usage for unloading Electric prods were used on 22% of all loads and 32% of beef cattle loads. 13% of all cattle loads had electric prods used on more than 25% of the animals unloaded. 18% of beef loads saw electric prods used on more than 25% of the animals unloaded. Other driving aids used while unloading 15% of beef loads experienced the aggressive use of these other driving aids. Aggressive use is defined as making contact with Point of the animal with driving aids such as sticks, paddles, and whips. Electric prod usage while moving cattle to the restrainer 83% of all plants used electric prods for moving cattle to the restrainer. 65% used electric cattle prods on more than 25% of their cattle. Other driving aids used when moving cattle to the restrainer -- 39% of plants audited showed the aggressive use of driving aids when moving cattle to the restrainer. Employee fatigue increased aggressive handling. Improve footing so cattle don t slip and injure themselves. Beef Cattle Edition

6 Point of When transporting separate cattle by gender to avoid injury or bruising to livestock. Holding Pen Audits Part 1 Key points: Fewer cattle had mud/manure problems than in More cattle were polled than in Fewer cattle had brands than in % of the cattle had some form of identification. Prevalent color for beef cattle was black. Visible defects 69% of all cattle had no visible defects. 72% of beef cows and 76% of beef bulls had no visible defects. Abscesses and lumpy jaw 0.39% of cattle had abscesses of the jaw/tooth compared with 1% of all cattle in the 1999 audit. 1% of all cattle surveyed had abscesses of the knee/hock, down from 2% in As in 1999, 0% of beef cows and 1% of beef bulls had knee/hock abscesses. 0.59% of all cattle, beef cows, and beef bulls had lumpy jaw, the same rates seen in Udder defects 83.9% of all cows audited had no udder defects, while 89.5% of all beef cows were free of udder defects. Reproductive defects Cows surveyed had a 0.23% incidence of vaginal prolapses and 0.31% incidence of retained placentas. 4.08% of bulls had broken penises. Hide colors 44.2% of beef cows and 52.3% of beef bulls had black hides. The second-most prevalent hide color was red. 32.3% of beef cows and 28.6% of beef bulls had red hides. Identification types 68% of all cattle surveyed had back tags. 60% of all cattle, 57% of beef cows, and 42% of beef bulls had visual identification tags. Metal clips were used to identify 45% of all cattle, 55% of beef cows, and 33% of beef bulls. 8% of all cattle, 6% of beef cows, and 14% of beef bulls had no identification. Mud/manure -- 57% of all cattle had some amount of mud/manure with 51% of mud/manure located on the legs. All cattle improved from only 6% with no mud/ manure in 1999 to 43% with no mud/manure in Brands -- 76% of all cattle surveyed during the 2007 audit had no brand, an improvement from 1999 s 54%. Horns -- There was an increase in the percentage of polled animals since the 1999 audit, from 77% to 83%. Frequency Distribution of No Mud/Manure for 1999 vs No Mud/Manure All Cattle Beef Cows Dairy Cows Beef Bulls Dairy Bulls National Market Cow and Bull Beef Quality Audit

7 Holding Pen Audits Part 2 Key points: 97% of the cattle had no evidence of cancer eye, an improvement over 1999 and More knots were observed in the shoulder than the neck, an indication that producers need to observe labeling instructions for injectable animal-health products. Fewer beef cows were lame than in More beef cows were in leaner condition than in Fewer cattle had light muscle scores than in Cancer eye -- 97% of all cattle had no evidence of cancer eye. Cancer eye has been on a downward trend since 1994, dropping from an incident rate of 8.5% in 1994 to 4% in 1999 and 3% in Visible knots 92.1% of all cattle surveyed had no visible knots. When visible knots were present, 2.6% were in the neck, 4.6% in the shoulder, 0.2% in the top butt, and 0.50% in the round. 95.7% of beef cows and 98.7% of beef bulls had no sign of knots. 1.8% of beef cows and 0% of beef bulls had knots in the neck area. 2.1% of beef cows had shoulder knots and 1.0% of beef bulls had shoulder knots. The incidence of knots in the round area in beef cows held steady between the 1999 audit and the 2007 audit at 0.3%, but knots in the shoulder area of beef cows rose from 0.3% in 1999 to 2.1% in The higher incidence of shoulder knots indicates a need for continued education, says Texas A&M s Dr. Jeff Savell. These knots are likely the result of intramuscular injections of animal health products instead of the recommended subcutaneous injections in the neck area. Lameness 70% of all cattle, 84% of beef cows, and 69% of beef bulls showed no sign of lameness. 4% of all cattle received scores of 4 and 5, considering these animals as very disabled. At 16%, fewer beef cows were lame in 2007 than the 27% in the 1999 audit, but more than the 11% in the 1994 audit. Similarly, there were fewer lame beef bulls in 2007 (31%) than in 1999 (36%), but more than the 27% found lame in the 1994 audit. Frequency Distribution of Cattle that were Not Lame - Across all Audits Beef Cows Dairy Cows Beef Bulls Dairy Bulls Muscling 21% of all cattle audited were inadequately muscled. There were fewer light-muscled beef cows in 2007 than in In the 1999 audit 44% of beef cows came in with a muscle score of 1. In 2007 that number fell to 14%, Body condition score Cattle were evaluated using the nine-point body condition scoring (BCS) system. A score of 1 means the animal is severely emaciated. A score of 9 indicates obesity found beef bulls in better condition than beef cows. 95% of bulls and 86% of cows earned a score between 3 and 7. Overall there were fewer moderately conditioned beef bulls and cows (scoring 5) since the 1999 audit. 22% of beef cows had a body condition score of 5 in 1994, then 31% in 1999, and now 21% in The percentage of beef bulls scoring 5 for body condition ranged from 42% in 1994, to 54% in 1999, to 29% in Point of Administer animal-health products in the neck, and do so subcutaneously when label allows Beef Cattle Edition

8 Point of Follow the NCBA guidelines for animal care and handling. Harvest Floor Audit Key points: No buckshot/bird shot was observed during the 2007 audit, an improvement over Fewer cows had bruises than in 1994 and Overall, 94% of the cattle had no visual evidence of injection-site lesions. Fewer arthritic joints than in 1999 More heads and livers were condemned than in Fewer cows were pregnant at harvest than in Dentition 11.2% of all cattle and 17% of beef cows had 8 extremely worn adult incisors (classified as gummers). 58% of all bulls and cows had 8 adult incisors. Beef cattle came in at 51% with 8 adult incisors. Bruises The 2007 audit found fewer carcasses with bruises than in the 1994 and 1999 audits. The highest incidence of bruising in beef cow carcasses was in the round at 14%, followed by 11.8% FPB, 7% loin, 2% chuck, and 1% rib. Beef bull carcass bruising figures were 14% round, 9% FPB, 6% loin, 2% rib and 1% chuck. Injection-site lesions Overall, 94% of carcasses showed no evidence of injection site lesions. 2% of all carcasses had minor injection-site lesions that resulted in trims of less than one pound per bruise site. 1% of beef cows and bulls had minor lesions. Arthritic joints 89% of all carcasses in 1999 had no arthritic joints removed. This figure was improved to 94% in 2007 of carcasses. 95% of beef cow carcasses and 91% of beef bull carcasses had no arthritic joints removed. 0.3% beef cow carcasses had 2 arthritic joints removed. Buckshot/grubs % of carcasses audited in 2007 were buckshot-free % of carcasses were free of grubs. Offal condemnation -- More offal was condemned in 2007 than in % of livers were condemned in 1994, 24% in 1999, and 45% in Of the 45% of rejected livers, 14% were abscessed, 7% were contaminated, 6% had flukes, 5% had T-lang, and 14% were rejected for other reasons. Whole carcass condemnations -- In 2007, when more than 1% of whole carcasses/animals were condemned, 0.3% were condemned antemortem and 0.8% were condemned postmortem. No carcasses were condemned due to bruises in Pregnancy - 11% of all cows were pregnant at harvest in 2007, down from 12% in 1999, and 28% in Beef cows had an even smaller incidence of pregnancy at 10%. Frequency Distribution % of Bruising Severity Bulls Cows None Minor Medium Major Extreme None Minor Medium Major Extreme National Market Cow and Bull Beef Quality Audit

9 Cooler Audits Key points: Cows and Bulls were heavier than in 1999 Cows and bulls had a lower fat thickness than in 1999 Majority of cows had a muscle score of 1 or 2 More cows had the more desirable fat color scores of 1 and 2 than in the previous two audits. Carcass weight Cow and bull carcasses were heavier in 2007 than in In 1999 cow carcasses averaged lbs. and bull carcasses averaged lbs saw beef cow carcasses averaging lbs. and beef bull carcasses averaging lbs. 21% of all carcasses were too light (less than 500 pounds) and 7% of all carcasses were too heavy (more than 1,000 pounds) compared to the 46% that were too light and the 27% that were too heavy in % of beef cow carcasses were too light, and 4% were too heavy. 6% of beef bull carcasses were too light, and 19% were too heavy. Fat thickness - Fat thickness for all carcasses averaged.22 inches in 2007, lower than the.37 inches measured in Ribeye area Ribeye area averaged 10-square inches. Ribeye area/cwt of carcass averaged Lean maturity 27% of all carcasses were scored as C maturity for lean. 26% of beef cow carcasses and 37% of beef bull carcasses were classified as C lean maturity. In % of cow carcasses were D lean maturity. Skeletal maturity 16% of all carcasses, 17% of beef cow carcasses, and 26% of beef bull carcasses were D maturity. In 1999 cow carcasses averaged E - and bull carcasses averaged D o. Overall maturity 39% of all carcasses, 38% of beef cow carcasses, and 25% of beef bull carcasses were graded as D overall maturity. Quality grade -- 44% of all carcasses graded utility. 29% of all carcasses and 33% of beef cows carcasses graded as cutters. 8% of all carcasses and 11% of beef cow carcasses graded as canners. 0.2% of the carcasses audited graded prime. Muscling scores - The majority of beef cow carcasses had a muscle score of 1 or 2, with an average for all cattle of In 1999 cow carcasses averaged 1.6 and bulls averaged 3.5. Fat color scores -- More carcasses audited in 2007 had fat color scores of 1 and 2 (whiter color). The 2007 average score was 2.7. The average fat color score in 1999 was 3.8 for cow carcasses and 2.5 for bull carcasses. Yield grade -- The average yield grade was 2.6 in this year s audit. Cow carcasses in the 1999 audit averaged a 2.4 yield grade. Point of Market your cattle before they become too thin or too lame for transport. Beef Cattle Edition

10 Point of Maintain record-keeping systems to verify your good management practices and reduce or eliminate potential for liability surrounding issues of food safety. Fabrication Audits Key points: A significant portion of the cuts from beef is being used as whole muscle cuts and lean strips of meat. The round, sirloin and chuck from cows and bulls are being sold as lean trim for primal specific ground beef programs. Average percentage of products produced -- The 2007 audit found on average, during one full production day, 11% of the products produced were forequarter cuts, 28% were hindquarter cuts, 1% were SPB, and 58% were trim. With the exception of tenderloins, most hindquarter subprimals were 100% lean and likely used for grinding. Subprimals -- Of plants that submitted information about fabricating subprimal cuts from primal regions of cow and bull carcasses, 100% fabricated rib cuts, 100% fabricated loin, 85.7% round, 85.7% flank, 57.1% chuck, and 14.3% brisket. Plant production by product The 2007 audit noted an increase in the percentage of plants fabricating most cuts since Table X % of Plants that Produce Each Item Product 1999 % 2007 % Ribeye Tenderloin Knuckle Flank Inside Round Strip Loin Top Sirloin Butt 5 71 Chuck Tender Eye of Round Bottom Round Chuck Roll Bottom Sirloin Flap Brisket Shortloin Clod Tri-Tip Traceability audits 2% of carcasses were selected randomly to determine whether the animal could be traced back to the ranch/farm. Plant information such as back tags, bangs tags, and owner information were used for this process. Auction barns, USDA offices, and actual owners were contacted to identify the point of origin for each animal. 64% of all cattle and 71% of beef cattle were traced back to their original owner. 19% of all cattle and 16% of beef cattle were traced back to the auction barn. 13% of all cattle and 11% of all beef cattle were traced back to the cattle dealer/trader. 5% of all cattle and 3% of all beef cattle could not be traced back past the packing plant. 10 National Market Cow and Bull Beef Quality Audit

11 Phase II The Interviews Interviews were conducted with one packer and one Food Safety and Inspection Service employee at each packing plant. The interviews consisted of free response and aided questionnaires and were used to determine improvements and declines in the quality of cattle since the 1999 audit. Packing plant and FSIS representatives interviewed acknowledged that the downer rule instituted by the United States Department of Agriculture s Food Safety and Inspection Service has led to several improvements in beef cattle quality. Packing plant representatives noted a decrease in the number of downer, dead and moribund cattle, and fewer instances of inadequate space on trailers and incorrect loading of cattle. FSIS representatives also noticed fewer downer, dead, and moribund cattle, and fewer instances of inadequate space on trailers. Their observations indicated fewer animals arriving suffering from advanced lameness and extreme emaciation. Top quality challenges, 1999 versus Bruises Food safety Antibiotic residues Animal welfare/handling Birdshot/buckshot Poor condition/nutrition Arthritic joints Antibiotic residues Yield Bruises Condition/leanness Condemnation rate Top 5 improvements in beef cattle since 1999 Herd management techniques Animal welfare and handling Hide damage Injection-site location Bruises Hide damage Lameness/soundness Condemnation rates/downers Injection-site prevalence Point of Recognize and optimize the value of your market cows and bulls. Cows and bulls comprise a significant portion of your farm or ranch s income so they need to be managed and marketed in ways that add value not detract from it. Beef Cattle Edition 11

12 Point of Ensure the safety of your product. Cows and bulls must be free of chemical, pathogenic and physical hazards when you ship them for harvest. Phase III End User Audits A total of eight end-user audits were conducted. These audits consisted of interviews and looking for quality defects in subprimal cuts as they were being further processed. Auditors looked at top sirloin center-cuts and caps, and bottom round flats. They looked for any injection site lesions as well as other defects that cause devaluation. Top 5 cow and bull quality challenges according to end users as determined during the interview process: Product uniformity Product quality Buck shot Cattle availability Injection sites Top 5 improvements in cow/ bull subprimals End users said that injection-related defects have improved since 1999, including a reduction in the incidence of needles, abscesses, injectionsite lesions, and bruising. They also noted that there were fewer incidences of buckshot. Declines in cow/bull primals since 1999 End users noted growing concerns over meat from primals that is too light or too dark in color. Coloration problems were mainly a concern for steaks cut from top butts. Top sirloin cap defects When examining the subprimals as they were being further processed, end user auditors found that 9.4% of top sirloin caps had injection site blemishes. 90.2% of beef top sirloin caps had no defects. 6.8% had minor defects, 0.1% had severe defects, and 0.0% were condemned. Top sirloin center cut defects 95.8% of all center cuts had no defects. 3.8% of center cuts had injection-site blemishes. Bottom round defects 67.0% of all bottom rounds had no defects. 15.5% had active lesions, 10.4% had woody calluses, 3.6% had fibrous scars, 1.0% had bruises, and 2.7% were dark cutters. In % of beef flats had defects, compared to 11.7% in % of all bottom rounds had no defects. 25.3% had minor defects, 1.3% had severe defects, and 0.1% were condemned. Conclusions The Strategy Workshop Representatives of all industry sectors met at a strategy workshop to discuss findings of the audit, and to develop industry-wide recommendations for the improvement of quality defects in cows and bulls. Overall, participants agreed, the beef cattle industry has made significant quality gains since the last audit. There has been significant improvement in the reduction of downer cattle. All trailer and truck loads met the American Meat Institute guidelines for spacing. Less than 1% of the cattle traveled for more than 28 hours. Fewer cattle had mud/manure problems than in More cattle were polled than in The reduction in the incidence of horns is a positive development because horns can cause substantial bruising to other animals in pens and on trucks, Lynn Delmore, California Polytechnic State University. Horns can also result in head condemnations during postmortem inspections because they have to be removed to allow the hide to be removed properly. This exposes the sinus cavity to hair and other foreign materials that violate the zero tolerance standards. More cattle had no brands than in The presence of brands causes devaluation of hides, particularly if the brand is located on the ribs. 92% of the cattle in the 2007 audit had ID (predominantly back tags), so traceability was improved. Prevalent color for beef cattle was black. 97% of the cattle had no evidence of cancer eye (an improvement over 1999 and 1994). Fewer beef cows were lame. More dairy and beef cows were in leaner condition. Fewer cattle had inadequate muscle scores. Fewer cattle had bruises than in 1994 and This is a positive trend because bruises require trimming in varying degrees depending on the severity of the bruise. Overall 94% of the cattle had no evidence of injection-site blemishes. Only 2% of beef cows had visible injection-site blemishes. Fewer cattle had arthritic joints than in This is a very positive trend because packers are required to remove all tissue associated with arthritic stifle joints. Fewer arthritic joints equal less trim loss. 12 National Market Cow and Bull Beef Quality Audit

13 No buckshot or birdshot was observed during the audit although it is still a packer concern. Fewer cows were pregnant at harvest than in Cows and Bulls were heavier than in Cows and bulls had a lower fat thickness than in Majority of cows had a muscle score of 1 or 2. More cows had desirable fat color scores of 1 and 2 (whiter color) than in 1999 or Initiatives for : 1) The cattle industry needs to reduce the use of electric driving aids and provide training in low stress cattle management in order to minimize the aggressive use moving cattle off of trailers and when moving cattle to a restrainer or knock box. 65% of the plants used the electric prod on more than 25% of the animals. Beef cattle loads were more likely to be unloaded with the aid of hotshots. 2) s are needed to lessen the incidence of cattle slipping when unloading, especially for beef cattle loads. 3) Continued improvement is needed in separating cattle by gender. 4) More knots in the shoulder than in the neck indicates a need for continued education about the proper way to administer animal-health products; most of these products need to be administered subcutaneously rather than intramuscularly when both routes are approved. Because the NCBA encourages producers to administer products in the neck, knots in this region are not counted as quality defects. 5) More heads and livers were condemned. 6) All producers should realize that the animal care guidelines adopted by the National Cattlemen s Beef Association apply to the handling and care of all cull animals. Marketing Producers should market cattle in a timely and appropriate manner, long before their cattle become too thin or too lame for transport. Because producers tend to observe the condition of their cattle during pregnancy checking, calving and branding, this can lead to seasonal market overloads and product-quality deficiencies within these cattle. This reduces income opportunities for cattlemen. Producers should conduct frequent observation of their cattle to prevent loss of body condition to the point where the animal is emaciated. Producers should consider marketing cattle that show structural and/or disease problems rather than holding on to them to try to get one more calf. Holding cattle for a longer period of time decreases the quality of the cull cow and raises the possibility that she will be condemned at slaughter, returning no income. Producers need to make culling decisions prior to the application of drugs, insecticides, and wormers, which might leave a violative residue if the animal is marketed prior to the withdrawal date. Cows with body condition scores less than 3 need special consideration when marketing. These cattle need to possess sufficient soundness for transport and sale. In some cases, producers should consider a reconditioning program to increase muscle and fat deposition of their cull cattle prior to marketing. Point of Continuously monitor herd health. It s in your best interest to observe the health of your cow herd, and to ensure you market cows and bulls before they become too compromised to make the trip to town. Beef Cattle Edition 13

14 Point of Prevent quality defects. Things like bruises, injection-site lesions, improperly placed brands, dark cutters, or cattle that are too thin or too fat, have inadequate muscling caused by emaciation are preventable. Transport and handling of animals All persons involved in the handling and transport of beef and dairy animals should follow the guidelines defined in the Master Cattle Transporter program. Responsible use of driving aids such as electric prods is always recommended. Risk Management and Information Management Producers should maintain recordkeeping systems to verify their Good Management Practices (GMP). Production records should document the use of animal health products as well as the animal husbandry practices that have been employed prior to the animals being marketed. The result will be a decrease in liability for issues that may occur after harvest. And, integration of existing ID systems will improve traceability of the product, such as the integration of tag numbers and visual animal ID tags. Four Primary Directives Participants at the Strategy Workshop also developed four primary directives for the improvement of cow and bull beef. These include: Recognize and optimize the value of your market cows and bulls Over the years, returns from the sale of market cows and bulls represented approximately 16% of total returns to the average beef cow/calf operation and about 4% of total returns for the average dairy operation. The perception of many beef and dairy producers is that market cows and bulls are simply culls rather than an important food source. However, beef from market cows and bulls is widely used in the retail and food service sectors in a variety of product forms not just as ground beef. It is important that producers begin to view their market cows and bulls as valuable contributors to the beef supply. During the Strategy Workshop, Dr. Bill Mies of Elanco Animal Health encouraged producers to have the same mindset when selling market cows and bulls that they have when they are trading for a new pickup truck. Most people will clean up an old pickup truck to add value to it before trading it in on a newer model, says Mies. The same is not true for most producers when selling cows and bulls. Producers should identify opportunities to add value to their market cows and bulls. For example, it may be possible to feed cows for a brief period prior to marketing to increase weight and improve body condition and carcass characteristics. This brief feeding period may also help identify obviously ill cattle that should be rendered. Moreover, small operators may be able to expand marketing opportunities by pooling cattle resources and forming cooperative marketing agreements. Livestock auction markets can play an integral role in the development of expanded marketing opportunities for producers. Be proactive to ensure the safety and integrity of your product Consumer confidence is one of the most important issues facing today s beef industry. Market cows and bulls must be free of chemical and physical hazards when they are shipped for harvest. Additionally, both dairy and beef producers must do their part to reduce the incidence of pathogens in the beef supply. Producers, by their efforts alone, cannot eliminate the occurrence of pathogens in the beef supply. However, they can play an important role in reducing the incidence of pathogenic organisms in or on beef by maintaining biosecurity and cleanliness of animal facilities and by keeping market cows and bulls as clean as possible. Injectable pharmaceuticals must be administered using recommended guidelines regarding location and route of administration, dosage, and specified withdrawal time to ensure cattle are free of antibiotic and other violative residues. Following proper industry guidelines also will minimize the occurrence of injection-site lesions in whole muscle products entering the beef trade. Foreign matter includes broken injection needles, birdshot/buckshot, etc. Producers cannot risk leaving broken needles in the muscle tissue of cattle that ultimately will enter the human food supply and must develop a protocol for removing needles should they break-off into the muscle tissue when treating/vaccinating cattle. Producers also must be aware of the growing concern regarding 14 National Market Cow and Bull Beef Quality Audit

15 adulteration of beef products with birdshot and buckshot. Use of shotguns to gather cattle must be prohibited. Moreover, efforts of cattlemen to identify sources of birdshot/buckshot by hunters and others should be intensified. Use appropriate management and handling practices to prevent quality defects A number of quality defects such as bruises, injection-site lesions, improperly placed brands, dark cutters, cattle that are too thin or too fat, and inadequate muscling caused by emaciation are manageable and can be prevented. Producers should implement a quality assurance program and use best management and handling practices to reduce the incidence of such quality defects. Bruising of market cows and bulls represents a significant source of marketing losses to producers. Producers can reduce the incidence of bruises by not overcrowding cattle in alleyways, chutes and trailers; minimizing the use of prods and whips; selecting against wild or temperamental cattle; training people at all pints in the marketing chain with respect to proper cattle handling techniques; eliminating horns; moving cattle slowly to and from pens; properly designing and maintaining facilities; and improving transportation methods. Closely monitor herd health and market cattle timely and appropriately Diseases and injuries are common in mature cattle and cannot always be prevented or corrected. In such cases, producers must intervene promptly and appropriately to prevent suffering of afflicted animals and to maintain product quality and safety. Producers should closely monitor their herds for serious conditions such as cancer eye, arthritis and severe structural problems or injuries, lump jaw, advanced abscesses, chronic illness, and emaciation. Euthanasia should be considered for disposing of downers or cattle with advanced or terminal disease conditions. Euthanasia may be more responsible and humane than transporting a compromised animal to a processing plant in an effort to use it for human consumption. Producers can reduce marketing losses associated with advanced stages of cancer eye by early detection and correction of the problem. Long-term, cattlemen should consider genetic strategies (such as EPD development or marker-assisted selection) for reducing the occurrence of cancer eye in breeds that are most susceptible to the problem. Finally, the incidence of severe cases of cancer eye would decrease if producers would refuse to sell, and packers would refuse to buy, cattle that have advanced cancer eye lesions. Marketing losses associated with arthritis and the considerable carcass trim loss that results from removal of arthritic joints also can be reduced by early detection and intervention. Other actions that producers may consider include training of all personnel to avoid causing injuries to cattle, selection for structural correctness, and improvement of flooring and housing in production facilities (particularly dairies) to reduce the incidence and severity of arthritic joints. QUALITY ASSURANCE MARKETING CODE OF ETHICS 1. I will only participate in marketing cattle that: Do not pose a known public health threat Have cleared proper withdrawal times Do not have a terminal condition (including advanced lymphosarcoma, septicemia, etc.) Are not disabled Are not severely emaciated Do not have uterine/vaginal prolapses with visible fetal membrane Do not have advanced eye lesions Do not have advanced Lumpy Jaw 2. Furthermore, I will: Do everything possible to humanely gather, handle and transport cattle in accordance with accepted animal husbandry practices. 3. Finally, I will: Humanely euthanize cattle when necessary to prevent suffering and to protect public health. To facilitate implementation of the four directives, participants in the 1999 Strategy Workshop developed a Quality Assurance Marketing code of Ethics for use by cattlemen, dairymen, and packers when it comes to marketing cows and bulls. If producers fail to adopt a proactive position concerning product quality and integrity, the availability of antimicrobials and the approval of new animal-health products could be jeopardized, higher costs associated with residue monitoring systems could be incurred, the number of market outlets could decrease, and the beef industry could be forced to comply with an unwieldy and expensive national animal identification system designed and mandated by regulatory agencies. Beef Cattle Edition 15

16 For more information contact: National Cattlemen s Beef Association 9110 East Nichols Avenue, Suite 300 Centennial, Colorado